Fair Use Policy

The Museum contains a number of materials that have been previously published
under other copyrights. The copyright law provides that the holder of a
copyright may control when, where, and whether his material is published,
or republished. In essence, a copyright holder has all the legal rights
over the copyrighted material that normally pertain to physical property
ownership, even though the material may consist only of an intellectual
arrangement of ink on paper.

In order to enforce a copyright and protect it from trespass, the claimant
must be able to assert three things:

that the claimant is the originator and source of the material (for example,
one cannot claim copyright to a newly discovered Beethoven Symphony)

that the material was previously unpublished when the claimant made it
public (that is, once something has been donated to the public domain through
indiscreet publication, copyright may be forever lost)

that the alleged trespasser of the copyright should have been reasonably
aware of the claimant's copyright assertion (for example, the material
contained a Copyright notice).

Copyrights can be bought and sold, just as any other property. Thus a publisher
can buy a book from an author, and thereafter publish the book under their
own copyright.

The copyright law contains some leniency for republication without permission
in the following cases:

Satire: If the alleged trespasser can prove republication was for
satirical purpose, the claimant loses.

Critical review: Portions of a work may be quoted without permission
for the purpose of critical review, providing that authorship is correctly
accorded.

Scholarly research: By historic precedent, explicit permission is
not required in order to quote passages for the purpose of scholarly review,
providing that authorship is correctly accorded.

The Museum staff fully recognizes and appreciates intellectual property
rights. The rational for the current use of the these materials is as follows:

Much of the photography will fail a copyright claim on point 1, above.
Most of the photography ever published on the Waco event was taken by government
employees on government payroll, some of it from government aircraft. On
this material, the claimants cannot claim to be the original source of
the material.

The written material republished from newspapers is quoted for the purpose
of critical review, most of it with a single major point of criticism:

Without the full cooperation of the news services, the Waco Holocaust
would not have been possible. The government agencies were brutally abusive
to the free press in Waco, and the major services uttered not a single
protest. Each day, the FBI held a closed door press briefing on what the
public should be told, and any reporter who published material not in agreement
with that script was not permitted to attend thereafter.

This may seem like sheer greed on the part of these news services, but
it is worse: one cameraman (Mulloney from KWTX) was in the wrong place
on February 28, and a group of government thugs beat him up. Another camera
man went too close to the burning Mt. Carmel on April 19, and was arrested.
Neither of these case received major coverage.

In their major role as the eyes and ears of the public, the news services
operated as shameless betrayers of the principles news services have claimed
for themselves in this country's history. Styling themselves as the "fourth
estate" (beside the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government),
the Waco Holocaust was an historic opportunity for the US news services
to operate as a part of the checks-and-balances system of government. And
they failed miserably.

The government put out wild allegations about the Davidians (see Psychological
Operations and the Verbiage of War in the War Gallery) and the news
services published them without skepticism. The government redefined law
enforcement as war, and war as law enforcement, and the press slavishly
followed every redefinition. The agencies trampled almost every principle
of civil rights, and the press offered no checks or balances.

And worst of all, the press had access to volumes of information, some
fragment of which is in this Museum--they could easily have determined
the truth, had they cared--and they did nothing.

It is this criticism with which the Museum claims fair use of these
materials: despite the presence of truth sprinkled here and there on this
page and that, the reporters laughed and joked with the FBI agents. They
laughed and hooted and jeered as the Davidians made pitiful attempts to
gain their sympathy during those long weeks of torture. And they let those
people die in horrible fashion, while fawning on the monsters who tortured
and murdered them.

Many people who distrust the mainstream media have turned to alternate
news sources, some of which are Internet based. Unfortunately, many
of these alternate sources of news simply promote an alternate series
of lies. These alternate lies are of course dressed up as "exposés."
But you can easily tell the phonies from the real thing. The information
in the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum is an acid test.

Does your news source promote Mike McNulty's video, Waco: The Rules
of Engagement or wring its hands because the Davidian law suit against
the government failed? (See Waco
Documentary Is A Hoax! and Waco
Suits for Waco Suckers.)
Does your alternate news source carry promotional pieces about rebuilding
the Davidian church in Waco and mouth nice words about "healing"?
(See The Cover-up Church.)

Remember, since ancient times, inquiries into questionable deaths have
started with the bodies of the victims. If your news source won't
give you an honest and full account of the forensic information on Waco,
or if it does not have a link to the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum ...
your alternate news has failed a fundamental acid test.